democracy and majoritarianism

[marnix]

just following on from the Iraq enquiry, where some commentators are making the claim that the decision to go to war was "undemocratic" appears to confuse democracy with majoritarianism

democracy elects representatives who then proceed to make decisions in our stead - whether this decision is supported by the majority of the population is immaterial in making this democratic or otherwise : the fact that it follows from the results of a democratic election process makes it de facto democratic

besides, public opinion varied substantially between 2003 and 2007, so what coincided with majority opinion at one time did not at other times
it's also a fact that if politics followed public majority opinion then the UK would still have the death penalty and would have joined, left and rejoined the EU at various times in the past decades

[drifterz]

The system is a representative democracy and different from direct democracy (also know as pure democracy or true democracy). From the terms pure and true democracy that indicates that representative democracy is less democratic and more autocratic than a pure or true democracy. I believe that if we are to call ourselves a democratic society that we should aim to come as close to a true (real) democracy, or direct democracy, as reasonably possible.

The major problem with representative democracies is that voter apathy is more common than political interest. This often means that governments are in power without a mandate, suggesting that they do not have electoral legitimacy, or the right to rule, while in office.

A voter cannot directly vote on specific issues or laws. All a voter really has as an option is to select between a few parties who make promises and have a platform they stand behind; but the parties also compete against other parties and may not always play fair. A voter is then forced to lobby the current political party if they want any real change, which takes valuable time and effort. Many voters have apathy for the system, because they are overworked, stressed, and have no time to spend as they are already busy.

A representative democracy, is still a form of democracy, however it is only democratic as far as the circle of representatives. A problem is introduced because the representatives may be biased, and not truly represent the entire population of voters. This is often the case when you consider what is required to become one of the representatives. Education, social influences, and location play a factor in who will be representatives. There are many barriers and limitations that prevent everyone from an equal chance of being a representative, and wealth is one of those factors.

Then you can take a look at the whole system and ask if the whole system truly is democratic. Does the government run in a democratic manner? Does society run in a democratic manner? Yes the election of a party is democratic, but after that the level of democracy starts to erode. I believe that certain members of the representation are then appointed by a select few. They will be appointed by the winning party, which already would be a limited representation of the voters. When it comes down to deciding on laws, the representative who come to the decision have already gone through many processes of biased selection. You can then ask yourself if it is really democratic.

[marnix]

i suppose that direct democracy would still not be the same thing as majoritarianism ? because if it is, then i see a problem in that the minority view never gets a possibility of getting their voice heard, and that is the direct route to an attempted coup by that minority (if they're well organised, that is)

[spuriousmonkey]

Well, the key question would be whether the USA is a democracy.

[marnix]

ok, let's first define then what makes a political system a democracy, and then we can see whether the US, UK, Germany, Finland, India etc. fit the bill

[drifterz]

i suppose that direct democracy would still not be the same thing as majoritarianism ? because if it is, then i see a problem in that the minority view never gets a possibility of getting their voice heard, and that is the direct route to an attempted coup by that minority (if they're well organised, that is)

Is it a problem if a minority view never gets heard? Or is it the thinking that a minority view must have the chance to be heard, that is backwards thinking and leading society in the wrong direction. I think that the minority views do get heard, however I think it's somewhat irrelevant seeing how they are a minority and therefore not the representation of the majority. Democracy is by definition about siding with the majority. Democracy means the majority wins. I think the problem is when a majority doesn't understand the implications of their decision, or fully understand the issue that they are asked to vote for. It should be instilled from a young age that it is moral to not vote if you do not understand the issue or circumstances. I could see some people voting just for the sake of voting, or thinking that they must vote even if they do not understand to avoid being viewed as incompetent or stupid.

[marnix]

just look at africa where tribalism infects their brand of democracy which means that the tribe in the majority always is in power, and the rest don't get a say - that's how the biafra war in nigeria started : the ibo did not have a chance of representation, so they attempted to secede

[drifterz]

So in a way you could say it's not really a majority by number of people, but a majority of power and resources that wins.

[marnix]

tribalism usually depends on the force of numbers, so the power and resources are ultimately derived from those numbers

[drifterz]

What if one tribe consists of many healthy young men in their 20s, and the other has more older men, but in fewer numbers, and more woman? I'm thinking if it comes down to the battle of force where no weapons or just primitive weapons are used. The tribe most able to fight will win.

Then again we would be talking about a war in that case. Which is different from the system in USA, Canada, and UK, for example, where we should be peaceful and non violent.

[marnix]

in doubt whether that reflects the state of any of the tribes that i'm aware of

[drifterz]

What if the tribe is cannibalistic or not. I'm sure that would have an effect on their politics and polices.

Also I was reading about the term Republic, from what I understand a Republic is often coined as a Representative Democracy, as in another name for a Republic system. Why not give another name for Dictatorship as a single-point democracy, that way citizens will think they have more of a say, even though it's the same system just re-coined.

[jackson33]

The US is not a democracy, rather a Representative Republic for a Union of States, not much different than the European Union concept, where all 27 included members have common interest on particular and intended issues.

In the case of War, Congress is the only authority that can declare war and where any financing for that war, comes from. On Afghanistan and/or Iraq or many probable covert actions (Pakistan) were agreed to and financed by Congress, at the request of the President and then financed. Many European Countries, including the UK were drawn into Afghanistan under the agreements between NATO Nations, declaring an act of war (9/11) is an act against all NATO members. Since all treaties are entered into by the various societies representatives, any form of Government, the Democracy angle would be invalid for entering that war. To make clear, NATO, was NOT obligated to the Iraq War and was by choice of those involved, in the US our Congress. I won't speak for the various Parliaments, but strongly suggest they may have had less choice than you might think.

[marnix]

... but strongly suggest they may have had less choice than you might think.

in what way ?

[jackson33]

marnix; I'd have to get into speculation and hypothetical's, but feel pressure can be placed on 'Heads of State' by others, at least in the discussion area, leading to action. An example (on Iraq), would be an 'OPINION' of mine, that Bush/Blair (possibly others) were privy to information or suggestions by Saudi Arabia/Kuwait and other oil producers, over concerns for security. Bluntly said, I've never felt WMD was the actual reason for entering Iraq, but the only palatable reason for the general population, which was never accepted, FLOW of crude oil, would have been, but would never have been internationally accepted.